Subscription Lists

It is popular among the "Christian Left" (I refer to the group that leans "left" in religious terms, not necessarily political) to argue that Genesis is not to be taken as historical narrative, but as myth. Now, to be clear, they don't (generally) say that to demean Scripture. It's not "myth" as in "fantasy" or "fiction", but more at "metaphor" and "teaching stories." "Myth" might refer to false beliefs or it might refer to traditional stories explaining some natural or social phenomenon, but they are not to be taken as actual historical events. "So," they would say, "we can learn a lot from Genesis, but you can't actually believe that Adam or Noah or Abraham or the like actually existed. No 'Creation', no 'Flood', no patriarchs. Just stories from which we can glean some principles."

You'd think this wouldn't be a big problem, really. Sure, some wish to discount Genesis entirely as the other use of the term, "myth" -- false stories. But if they're saying, "It's true, just not literally true", what harm can there be? Some hold that all of Genesis is myth. Others argue that it's just, say, the first 11 chapters or so. Why? Well, that first part is the part of Creation and Noah's Flood and that contradicts current science, I suppose. Turns out it might be more harm than you might think.

The writing style of the book of Genesis is the same from beginning to end, the same as the book of Exodus, Leviticus, and so on through Deuteronomy. None of it is presented in a "myth" or "legend" style, but as historical narrative. Mind you, that's not proof. Every fictional story is presented as historical narrative, too. But there is a substantial difference with the "Fiction" section of the bookstore and Genesis as fiction in the Bible. The question would be "Where does it end?" Since it's all written in the same style and bears no "breakpoint" -- no place that says, "Here we step into historical narrative where what went before was clearly mythical prose" -- there is no way to terminate the myth and take up history. So while we eliminate Creation, Noah and the Flood, we also remove Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Tower of Babel. We also find that Israel's slavery in Egypt, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, and all that occurred between Egypt and the Promised Land would also likely be classified as myth. That "pro-life" idea that Man is made in God's image? Right out the door. Myth. Original sin? Mere legend. The Creation? Well, Science certainly knows better than Scripture on that point.

Another problem is the problem of the view of Genesis in Church history. The Church in general has always seen Genesis as historical, not mythical. This puts the Church in all its history and all its orthodoxy as pretty stupid. Certainly not led by the Holy Spirit into truth.

A worse problem is a comparison of how the rest of Scripture takes the first five books in general and Genesis in particular. As it turns out, there are no references to Genesis in the rest of Scripture that regard it as myth. All take it as history. Luke traces Jesus's lineage to Adam (Luke 3:38). Paul refers to Adam as a person as real as Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49). He quotes Genesis 2:24 as a mystery that refers to Christ's union with the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). The author of Hebrews speaks of Abel, Enoch, and Noah (from the first 11 chapters of Genesis) and goes on to include Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, all from Genesis (Hebrews 11:4-22). In what sense could these people be examples of faith if they never actually existed? "These people (who were never real) demonstrate how faith works (in a way that never actually was)." Hebrews also compares Jesus to Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:11-17). Peter compares baptism to Noah's Flood (1 Peter 3:18-20) and offers Noah (in detail -- "with seven others") as warning of God's hatred of evil (2 Peter 2:4-11) along with other Genesis events. Jude lists Enoch as the seventh from Adam (Jude 1:14) and confirms that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for sexual immorality and unnatural desire (Jude 1:7). There is no doubt that the New Testament authors regard Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, as actual events. As it turns out, the foundation of Scripture is Genesis in general and chapters 1-11 in particular, providing us with God as Creator, the Sin of Man, and the original Promise of a Savior -- the Gospel -- in the first 3 chapters alone.

The worst problem, however, would be the problem of Jesus. You see, Jesus seemed to take all of that stuff as real events.

Jesus referred to Genesis 1:27 as agreed-upon fact and quoted Genesis 2:24 in regards to marriage (Matthew 19:6) and regarded Moses commands as real (Matthew 19:7-8). He referenced "the blood of righteous Abel" (Matthew 23:33-35), concurring with the Genesis account of Cain's murder of his brother, right alongside "the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah", the guy who wrote the book of Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1), so clearly Jesus regarded these as equally historical figures. Jesus said the time of His literal return would be compared to the time of Noah's Flood (Matthew 24:37).

In one New Testament event, Jesus took the Sadducees to task when they tried to trip Him up (Mark 12:18-27). They tried to show how stupid it is to believe in life after death by pointing to levirate marriage laws, ending with "In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be?" Jesus didn't answer their (foolish) question but took apart their foolish denial of the concept of resurrection. "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God," He said. To demonstrate that there was life after death, Jesus pointed to God's claim, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." He concluded, "He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong." (Mark 12:27) If Genesis is myth, on what basis does Jesus have an argument. The retort would simply be, "Don't be so simple-minded, Jesus. That stuff wasn't real; it was just mythical."

Now, it could be that Genesis is myth. And you can certainly take it that way if you wish. However, if you do, you will also need to discard all the New Testament authors who did not as mistaken, realize that the Church has no claim to the leading of the Holy Spirit into truth, and that Jesus was wrong ... many times. In other words, if Genesis is myth, so is Christianity, and not in a "traditional story explaining some phenomenon" way -- in a "false beliefs" way.

"The Way" from Kevin Pauley

A World of One